Champlin Oil & Refining Company v. Chastain
Texas Supreme Court
1DissentPope, Justice
I respectfully dissent. The majority has correctly held that Champlin proved no basis to reform its contract with Chastain. The Court has incorrectly held that Chas-tain is equitably estopped from recovery on the contract. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. Champlin, in my opinion, is ineligible to invoke the aid of a court of conscience to defeat its contractual liability. It breached the contract it drafted, discovered almost three years before Chastain that it was breaching it, was under a duty to make full and fair disclosure of its discovery but did not do so, and…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Gulbenkian v. PennTexas Supreme Court · 1952
- Russell v. Industrial Transportation Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1924
- Buchanan v. Burnett and WifeTexas Supreme Court · 1909
- Labbe v. CorbettTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.